Show Only: Captions | Democrats | Republicans | Media | Military
« Previous It may not be the most effiecent way to fish | Ironically Next »
Despite the invitation, the citizens of the North Pole do not feel adequately represented.
What is happening in the picture? Tell us in the Comments
Love WTFs? Check out Picture Is Unrelated
Picture by: DHAKA!!! Caption by: roseaddams via Advanced Lol Builder
 | viking gal on Interrupting Kanye: I’m … |
 | Liberty on Interrupting Kanye: I’m … |
 | Thatgamerguy on Interrupting Kanye: I’m … |
 | SemperGunny on Interrupting Kanye: I’m … |
 | The Amazing Rando on Interrupting Kanye: I’m … |
 | Kn0wledge1ne: King o… on Gates Angry! Gates Smash! |
 | dan_144 on Gotcha |
| The Amazing Rando on Which One Has The Vodka? |
| SemperGunny on Interrupting Kanye: I’m … |
| The Amazing Rando on Captionable Photo of the Day: … |
Cheezburger Network Blog
Then they will just have to grin and bear it?
ummmm its the north pole…should it not have elves and santa?
Uh, HELLLLOOOOO!!!! The Elves and Santa are a little busy right now… Jeesh!!!
-smacks jolly elf in the skull with his axe- rawr!
I think that’s a little too polarizing of an answer. Makes me feel like I got a chilled reception.
Maybe you arctic-ing someone off?
Good think Palin wasn’t at this Town Hall Meeting or else that bear would be a rug in her office.
Don’t get too happy, she’s waiting outside with her assault rifle.
Am I the only one who saw “DHAKA” and thought “DHARMA”?
4, 8, 15, 16, 23, 42.
i already have it on my calendar… 2/2/10 at 8pm.
**In Bad Chinese Accent** Ah!! You are wanting Sweet and Sour Pork, Won Ton Soup, Chicken Chow Mein, Plawn Clackers, Peking Duck and Flied Noodles. Order will be with you in 15 minutes
should of been a real bear, i would like al gore spend some time in the north or south pole, see no global warming, its only you ripping people off
“its only you ripping people off”
I resent that! I’m not ripping anybody off…well, not as much as I would like.
Its a tragedy that Al Gore was seen as the leading spokesperson for environmental politics in the US. Fvcking Al Gore.
Gore was never an environmentalist — he just latched on to what used to seem to be a hot-button issue.
One that’s being steadily exposed as false, at that.
What world do you live in? I want to make sure I never go there.
I guess you think those emails were fake? Or you don’t remember all the global warming is going to cause twice the number of killer hurricanes? And the rest of that BS that we have been fed for more than 20 years now.
I don’t think that one string of emails disproves decades of science.
It doesn’t! Congratulations. Now explain why all the predictions haven’t come true. Or why Mars is warming the same as Earth. Pluto too!
But those emails prove that there was an attempt to fake things, and oddly, the known fake has nearly the same results as those claiming to not be fake. I wonder why?
I completely agree. It seems as if the media and at least a number of different segments in society, however, started to treat him as if he was the leading spokesperson. For emphasis, I will rephrase my earlier statement
: Fukc you Al Gore.
But….but…he wrote a book! With words and other smert things and there was a movie thingy!
like OMG becky, this guy is totally saying things i like dont want to hear, i mean WTF ya know? lets just decide he is wrong because it like gets in the way of our agenda…he claims to have proof but like they also claim to have proof jesus didnt ride a dino into rome to fight ceaser with a machine gun…but they like totally dont.
Anything anyone says disagrees with someone’s agenda somewhere. What’s so special about Gore that he gets to be taken on faith? Is it a consolation prize because he’s been a miserable failure as a politician?
how is VP of the US being a miserable failure?
You may have a point but that didn’t really answer the question.
Al is not asking for blind faith, he offered evidence in the matter.
You mean like the earth’s core is several million degrees F and that the polar ice caps will be gone in 5 years, even though the treaty in Copenhagen has been put off for at least 6?
Or that the earth is warming at an alarming rate, even though we’re experiencing a cooling trend?
Or that the tree ring data that is the basis for the “hockey stick” graph showing climate change was based on a sample of three trees and cherry picked to give the “right” results?
Or that the baseline data for the warming trends was “lost in the move”?
Or that the researchers would rather destroy the data they used instead of allow another scientist to try to prove or disprove it?
THAT evidence?
as in contrast to the blind faith in what you support? what ever that is?
I support that climate change happens, that it’s cyclical, and that humans have no real control over it. There is evidence of climate change backed up by science. That is what I believe in.
honestly i believe in something very close to you, but it includes leapherchans.
MY comments was on the fact that if it came from gore, plug your fingers in your ears and go LA LA LA LA HE IS A LIBERAL HE MUST BE TELLING LIES TO GET RICH LA LA LA
What’s that? We have no control over global warming? It doesn’t really exist? AWESOME! Quick, everyone, start polluting the entire fvcking planet as fast as possible!!!! Man, I’m glad the conservatives showed us that we don’t have to change anything and the world is ours to trash.
So, if we *do* gut the global economy, nothing will happen… and if we *don’t* gut the global economy, also nothing will happen… so therefore we should clearly go ahead with the poorly-thought-out plan rather than thinking about what would *actually* improve the environment.
And the projected trillions in additional government tax revenues have absolutely nothing to do with that, right?
no no see its called RAPEING the envoritment for fun and profits, because in the end its all about ME and MY POCKET BOOK, FVCK EVERYONE ELSE THEY CAN DIEEEEEeeeee if i have to burn down a forest and kill everything in it to make a dime, i made a dime so its ok.
I didn’t say it didn’t exist. I said it’s cyclical.
And I also didn’t say anything about trashing the planet. Geez, you guys are pissy tonight.
if a child stands in your way of what you want, kill the child, bath in its blood, and get your fvcking dollar
We’re occasionally reminded of why he’s the bitter *troll*, not just the bitter *partisan*…
Normally, I just kick the child out of my way
So, once again, the conservative agenda is about $$$$$. No, wait, don’t try to save the environment! We’ve got to save the MONEY first! Won’t anybody think about the money?!
wait wait wait wait LOOK AT THIS ENTIRE PAGE????? HOW MUCH OF IT IS CHILDISH LASHS AT GORE?? now go ahead and cry a river of tears about how nasty we are, when its been nothing about what a awful man that mean old al gore is. he’s so evil, he’s so nasty bla bla bla same vile putrid crap pouring out again
*ahem* If I may.
Yes froo, there is a historical pattern of cyclic warming/cooling throughout history based on our secondary indicators. In fact there are many layers of cycles within cycles. The question is if our collective actions as a species have reached a threshold where our behavior is causing noticeable deviations in the natural heating/cooling cycles.
The short answer is yes. There is majority agreement in the environmental sciences and climatology that in fact our contribution to the natural carbon cycle is speeding up the general warming trend. Claiming we are in a ‘cooling period’ is a red herring. You are noticing the down swing of a 10 year sub cycle, the green house effect is affecting a larger century scale warming trend, which we are on schedule for, but is rising faster than projections indicate it should.
As for ‘cherry picking data’, it’s standard when dealing with complex data sets to eliminate statistical outliers when developing a trend line, especially when presenting that data to non-experts. Ugly data can make unskilled observers question the trends indicated when the data is properly analyzed. Whether you believe this practice of sanitizing data sets is ethical or not does not affect the fact that even under strict analysis of the more complex dataset the same trends emerge.
As for losing the original baseline data, they lost the original footage of Niel Armstrong and Buzz Aldren on the moon, that doesn’t mean we are right to question whether the moon landing is a hoax.
The only point of debate still valid in the wider scientific community and climatology in specific is the rate that warming is occurring. Showing me a laundry list of the minuscule sub-set of scientists that are still trying to argue the warming isn’t anthropogenic isn’t convincing. For every theory there are those who oppose it. One in a 100 million is actually right and that’s usually because there is a minor correction to the theory to account for fringe cases, not because the theory is wrong for the previously observed datasets. We still use Newtonian Physics every day, even though it has been superseded by Relativity, why? Because we don’t need the precision of Relativity for most cases. It’s irrelevant at the human level.
The data for global warming is not incorrect or falsified, but the models are incomplete and so their ability to provide specifics is limited. The general trend is not logically deniable.
There is no need for anyone to get frothy over this issue. Conservatives OR Liberals. What is needed is rational examination of the facts, not raging outbursts… from either side.
Hi, up there, you rational canuck.
You do realize that there ARE Americans who don’t believe the moon landing ever happened? Hee hee.
Green, I think your argument is about a month out of date. Or have you already digested, examined, and dismissed the preponderance of evidence that Mann et al have employed at best substandard data protocols?
@Mabs: Yes I am aware, there are lunatics the world over, however ‘most’ Americans know better than to fall for such tinfoil hat nonsense
Aw, Greenie. It’s so nice that you have such a high opinion of us. *hugs and cookies for the Canuck*
Surprisingly Dhoti I have assessed the Mann data, and I have to agree with Discover, the way Mann was presenting the data is a little shady, but the results are verifiable, and tree-ring data is only a single indicator in the climate shift data. Throwing the baby out with the bathwater is an unwarranted.
You don’t like it when liberals paint all conservatives as hypocrites when one, ‘Moral Right’ Congressman happens to end up in a sex scandal, why are you endorsing the same response when one scientist or lab is found to have fudged his numbers. His credibility will suffer over this and he will likely slip from the ranks of mainstream science. That’s how science works, but the rest of the overwhelming data does not change because one scientist or institution loses credibility.
That is surprising, Green, given the size of the email archive that was released. My understanding is that interested parties are still digging through and analyzing the information — I’m impressed that you were able to process it so quickly.
The trouble with that argument is that the CRU data isn’t some isolated data set; it’s very fundamental data that’s been very heavily used in follow-up work. I’d think its importance would mean that any potential challenges to its accuracy would be given more, not less, consideration.
Yes Dhoti I have reviewed the data released so far. And yes the Mann data was one of the pillars for subsequent studies because it was considered one of the most complete investigations in to historical climate patterns.
One of being the key.
There are still dozens of other datasets from other bodies. Yes there are in almost all cases references to the Mann data. However the corroborating studies show with a preponderance of evidence that the conclusions drawn from the CRU are for the most part accurate.
What this calls in to question is the precision of the current models. The ability to give time frames was dependent on the completeness of the CRU data. The corroborating evidence from ice core and geological data are far less precise and as such makes the predictions fuzzier. Not false.
Your reasoning strikes me as circular, Green — you agree with AGW theory because of a “majority agreement”, and because of that agreement, you’re confident that any contradictory evidence can be explained away. I haven’t seen you cite anything solid, just “majority agreement” this and “preponderance of evidence” that.
You’ll have to forgive me if I insist on a more empirical approach.
Dhoti, Let it never be said I don’t provide citations
Indermühle, A., et al., 1999: Holocene carbon-cycle dynamics based on
CO2 trapped in ice at Taylor Dome, Antarctica. Nature, 398, 121–126.
Jacob, D.J., et al., 1997: Evaluation and intercomparison of global
atmospheric transport models using 222Rn and other short-lived tracers.
J. Geophys. Res., 102, 5953–5970.
Jones, P.D., et al., 1986b: Northern Hemisphere surface air temperature
variations: 1851-1984. J. Clim. Appl. Meteorol., 25, 161–179.
Jouzel, J., et al., 1993: Extending the Vostok ice-core record of palaeoclimate
to the penultimate glacial period. Nature, 364, 407–412.
National Climatic Data Center, 2005: World Meteorological Organization,
World Weather Records, 1991-2000, Volumes I-VI. U.S. Department of
Commerce, NOAA, National Climatic Data Center, Asheville, NC, CDROM
format.
Neftel, A., E. Moor, H. Oeschger, and B. Stauffer, 1985: Evidence from
polar ice cores for the increase in atmospheric CO2 in the past 2
centuries. Nature, 315, 45–47.
I’m not spamming the thread with more citations, if that’s not enough for you go do some research.
And for the record I have seen no contradictory evidence. There are some Scientific institutions that are non-committal.There are no institutions that are dissenting.
Hey, GB, this one’s for you:
GB’s calling
LOL I love that one, it’s so exactly what I do.
but you had one too many quotation marks in there
Should look like this
Wait, so how did you know which one I meant? Canadian magic or Screech?
I’m an IT, my ninja-pirate skills are strong.
And if you roll over the link with your mouse it tells you where the link is pointing….
Hmph. Silly IT people showing up the math geeks. Last time I did any real computer stuff, it was on a VAX.
On a serious note, did you notice that Firefox spellcheck doesn’t think Canuck is a word? Of course, it also doesn’t think spellcheck is a word. That’s a bit zen….
I noticed that, I’m even using the Canadian Dictionary plug-in and it still says Canuck isn’t a word… I only use Firefox for work though, most of the time I use Opera.
{http://www.dailyexpress.co.uk/posts/view/146138}
Rando, no one wants to trash the environment, at least not anyone I know of. But the bull stuffing lies that is man made global warming isn’t the answer either.
We don’t have to be wasteful, but we don’t have to live in fear because we have the heat set above 55 degrees.
The truth JAC is that science has more or less moved on from the liberal ideal of trying to convince people to stop the behaviors that may be exaggerating our current climate shift. The climate is changing. Anthropogenic or not. The focus now is two fold. Provide the tools necessary to improve efficiency and decrease reliance on fossil fuels, and come up with workable solutions to mitigate the human impact the warming trend is going to have. Due to shifts in rainfall patterns and so forth we may even be able to benefit from this in our corner of the world (though developing nations will suffer almost universally).
The one thing everyone agrees on is preventing the shift is not a realistic option. That ship has sailed. I have no problem working with both sides on facing up to the fact we need to change to more sustainable energy production and look at finding ways to live with the consequences of global warming.
I love you all, but I must say tl;dr
Canuck, it’s not the facts that the left claim it is, as you did above. There is no majority consensus, that’s a lie.
Is it wrong for us to simply ask for the truth?
I’m not saying any more on the subject as Green Beard seems to know a hell of a lot more about it than I do. I hate the arguments that really require citing materials because I don’t have the time or the patience to dig stuff up for a LOL site discussion. Alls I knows is that my tree-hugging bleeding heart liberal passion goes haywire at about 98% of conservative beliefs (reactions ranging from feeling nauseous to anger & frustration), and sometimes playing nicey nice flat out fails for me. I’d like to say I’m sorry about going off tonight, but to be honest I’m not. If anything, I was holding back.
Radno, I’m all about not being wasteful, but I don’t think corrupt government something that needs to tell me what kind of car to drive. Or how many squares of TP to use. Ect….
Especially when the reasoning that has been used is showing more and more to be lies. If it were true, then I’d say we need to do something. It has nothing to do with conservative/liberal. Just tell the truth.
And I continue to question those who question global warming.
And like anything that needs to happen in this country, if the corrupt government doesn’t make people do it, they won’t do it, period. Especially if it comes to companies having to do good environmentally.
Go ahead and question them. They haven’t been caught in lies, trying to bolster their position. Nor have they abused the power of govt to make kids watch a lying movie.
And funny, I don’t remember the govt making Jack in the Box find a better way to prevent E Coli. They did that on their own.
Yeah, that example doesn’t really work. The results of eating e. coli burgers from JITB are a little more immediate and visible than environmental issues. If people are getting sick from JITB burgers, then I go to Burger King instead. That was front page news. JITB was on the brink of going under after that. How many companies end up going under because bad environmental policies are exposed? Not too many that I’ve heard of. Public opinion is not going to change how companies handle environmental issues because the public doesn’t care enough. And we can’t just let the environment get fvcked because people don’t care. That’s ridiculous. So what do we do? We have to make laws and regulations on that stuff or else nothing will ever change. Suggesting that companies or the public will take care of the problem on their own is absolute nonsense.
But, but, but, you just said that people or companies never change without the govt to help them.
Sorry Rando, they do. You’ve been told by Al and crowd that people wont do it unless the govt forces them.
So you can actually sit there and tell me that you think companies will adopt environmentally friendly policies out of the goodness of their hearts (and I mean REAL environmentally friendly policies, I don’t want to hear that so and so recycles their soda cans in the break room, I’m talking real reform here)? If that were true, why haven’t they done so already? Environmental problems aren’t exactly anything new.
Companies won’t change their environmental policies unless either forced to do so, or unless they see that their earnings are affected by it. And not enough people care about the environment to force companies to change their policies themselves.
I’m saying society will change them. And yes, there will always be corrupt companies, and they need to be busted stone cold.
Govt is a necessary evil, and one that needs to be kept on a short rope. And the people need to make smart decisions on who we buy from, and that has made a difference. Notice all the companies making adds for Green items? They aren’t doing that because govt is forcing them. They see the trends, and a good way to continue their existence.
Please ask Froo about the changes made in the poultry industry, not because of GovCo, but because of self interest and integrity.
JAC I’m man enough to cede that there is a great deal about climate science we do not know. What we do know is what is observable.
There are a number of chemicals in our atmosphere responsible for driving the self-regulating the long term temperature of the planet.
We are having a material impact on that natural regulatory system.
Over all climactic response appears to be an acceleration of the natural warming trend that is in fact supposed to be happening at this point in the cycle.
We do not know if there will be a counter balance that will compensate for this sudden rate increase in warming. Such a counterbalance is very plausible, but there is no precedent to posit its existence or how it works.
These things are not in question. The only points raised by credible members of the scientific community are that there is insufficient for building anything resembling a model of how this is going to pan out.
There is consensus among mainstream science on these points
As for both our governments being corrupt that is a given, but companies and especially large corporations however are amoral (please note I said amoral not immoral). Your example of Jack in the Box is a case of obvious financial pressure to change. Forcing companies to take responsibility for the externalities of their business model can ONLY be done by financial pressure. Good, Bad, Right, Wrong, and even in some cases legal and illegal are irrelevant to a large corporation. If the financial benefit of slaughtering children were sufficient to outweigh the costs and did not threaten its existence from public backlash a large corporate entity would not hesitate to do so. This does not hold for all small corporations and certainly not independently owned businesses, but when dealing with large corps and multinationals it is the responsibility of the people to be as vigilant with them as with their governments. Many companies, as you rightly point out are releasing ‘green’ products due to public demand. About a quarter of them are actually an improvement in sustainability over more traditional products. The rest are taking advantage of the fact that people want to be more environmentally friendly, but have almost no idea what that actually means.
In a democracy (democratic republics too) one role government is supposed to have is being a tool of society to keep order and prevent abuse by fraud. Government in many of our modern democracies is currently being used as a tool to perpetrate fraud, by anyone with enough money to buy the allegiance of the representatives you are electing. Rejecting government as a tool to control corporate fraud simply because your government is corrupt is like ignoring the use of your right hand, because you have a dog gnawing on it.
Kick the bloody dog already.
No one is rejecting govt as a tool, it just doesn’t need to be the whole tool box.
And that consensus is bull. Read that article I posted. And research it in more places. The actual numbers of scientists that support it are diminishing daily. And never were that great. A lot of hype and made up info.
Oh dear… JAC I simply do not have time to reply to all 100 points. Suffice it to say many of the points raised are valid but easily taken out of context. Others are nearly complete fabrication. Citing popular media as a reliable source is like trying to learn physics by watching Looney Toons cartoons.
I am not an advocate for dramatic reform, but the level of misinformation surrounding this issue is mind-blowing. I believe in appropriate reform based on rational assessment of our options, but rationality seems all but impossible on this issue since neither side seems to have any interest in honest discussion and are instead just wasting air throwing around absurd hyperbole. I have actively researched this issue and have acquainted my self with the primary research on the issues and believe I have an informed opinion on the problem and the reasonable solutions.
And I curse the ground Al Gore walks on for turning the whole damn thing in to a circus.
And you think myself and others haven’t researched it? Seems to me that a lot of the people crying bull have looked at the research, even that tainted in efforts to prove AGW, and found it lacking.
Do us all a favor, show us your data on the sun activity in the last 100 years.
JAC this argument is going nowhere. Clearly your threshold for scientific evidence is much higher than I am going to be able to achieve pointing to articles and citing references on a joke site. What’s more I do not believe our opinions are so different. As I stated above with the CRU data thrown out any predictive ability our current models have is questionable. I do believe the data is sufficient to indicate we are having an impact. Yes so does solar activity. Yes so does the natural eb and flow of natural carbon, methane, and particulate emissions and sinks. Yes our impact may be relatively minor in terms of the natural warming period that I have stated is supposed to happen at this point in the cycle. I do not believe in the “hockey stick” hypothesis. I will however state I have never been presented with any counter evidence presented by anyone with experience in the field, including oil patch chemists and engineers of whom I know several, that there is not sufficient human impact on the natural atmospheric chemical cycle to create a measurable effect on the warming process. I have seen some data that indicates the effect is relatively minor compared to the natural warming cycle. I have never had anyone credible tell me that there is no effect whatsoever. My opinion of those predicting apocalyptic outcomes is roughly the same as those claiming there is no effect whatsoever.
My concern is the impact we have can only grow as we increase consumption of fossil fuel. We have reached the threshold in human existence where we have a measurable impact on global climate. It is only rational to consider that impact when planning for the future. As you implied that doesn’t mean we have to feel obligated to turn back the clock and go back to living in grass huts and riding horses to work, but it does imply that we all need to be aware of the consequences of our choices and minimizing future impact needs to be a priority.
How about the evidence of the results? All the bunk coming out of the AGW crowd keeps coming up wrong!
Seems like God is having fun toying with them.
And I never expected you to answer all 100 of those posts, but the first 4 would be nice. You know, the factual information.
Keep in mind I’m all for being honest with our resources, and we need to do massive research in using our energy smartly. And I do think we are on the way with that. The energy efficiency of appliances, furnaces, homes and cars is a huge improvement over just 10 years ago.
And I also wonder about the energy efficiency of transporting our oil 1000′s of miles in the largest man made moving objects. Drill here, drill now. Build nuclear power plants. Improve our homes and cars.
But get govt and the guilt mongers out of it. The numbers of AGW don’t add up. It’s a like a piss ant falling out of a tree, landing on an elephant, and getting hump happy. He may have a big ego, but he ain’t making a difference.
Human produced CO2 is only 0.000022% of what the earth produces naturally. SUFFER YOU HUSSY!
And like I said, the guilt mongers DON’T account for the largest heat source known to man. Since the 1950′s, it’s always been focused on the automobile, no matter what they choose to call it that decade. I have some Reader’s Digests going all the way back to 1946, that I got from an estate sale. When I read them, I laughed at how the same threats have been screamed over and over. “The sky is falling, the sky is falling.” “Change now or die in 20 years.”
I hate a liar.
We may not necessarily agree on the ‘why’ JAC, but as far as the ‘what’ you said we should be doing.
Although I am a little suspicious on the whole ‘drill here, drill now’ thing. Cost of transport via large ocean liner is relatively cheap both financially and environmentally if done right, and the largest North American potential fuel deposits are in tar sands and tar shale, which is pricey to process and takes almost as much energy to extract oil from as you get out of the oil. Now if you could find a way to extract it without burning petro-diesel in the trucks and coal to run the processing plants that might work.
And if you wish I will answer your first 4 points
1) There is “no real scientific proof” that the current warming is caused by the rise of greenhouse gases from man’s activity.
Misdirection, real environmentalists know this is a natural warming period, the ‘proof’ is that we are warming faster (slightly at the moment, with no way of knowing how much faster or slower it might get) than we should be.
2) Man-made carbon dioxide emissions throughout human history constitute less than 0.00022 percent of the total naturally emitted from the mantle of the earth during geological history.
Time scale deception. Unless you are a ‘young earther’ which I doubt we have been around for 130,000 years while geological history is somewhere around 4.570 billion years. Further more, since we didn’t didn’t enter industrial scale burning of fossil fuel until the beginning of the industrial revolution and our CO2 contribution was negligible before that it’s an even more deceptive number.
3) Warmer periods of the Earth’s history came around 800 years before rises in CO2 levels.
True, historically CO2 increases traditionally followed from temperature increases. The science indicates there is a positive feedback loop that prolongs the warm period due to the presence of a CO2 rise, not that CO2 is the original cause, as you stated the traditional cause is usually attributed to solar maximums.
4) After World War II, there was a huge surge in recorded CO2 emissions but global temperatures fell for four decades after 1940.
2 points, first that was during a decade scale cooling period. They happen, the climate change we are talking about is centuries long, not the smaller decade scale cycles. Second there is always a lag between stimulus and response when dealing with a system as large and complicated as a planet.
I’m sorry, but you have an excuse for everything. There is no proof, if there was, there wouldn’t be a need for a consensus, as the AGW crowd tries to use. Turns out that we are also cooling. So much for proof.
Your theory of time scale deception doesn’t cut it either. You explanation doesn’t cover why there has been warming when man wasn’t producing C02. This also follows your answer about warming in the dark ages. There was nothing of any scale to produce enough CO2 to make the changes. Yet we have proof of cycles, just like we have been experiencing the last 100 years.
Including the 1940′s. You say it was just a decade scale. Ok, it took 40 years for the CO2 to take effect? And CO2 went down for a long time. I can see several years of a delay, but not 40.
Joe Biden. That is all.
more then sarah palin ever managed, is she “a miserable failure “
Considering that as VP you’re running on the merits of your leading man, I’d say that McCain was the failure, not Palin. The same thing applies for riding your leading man’s coattails to victory.
soooooo palin lost and she is this amazing person?
biden won, loser. gore won, loser. dan quayle won, loser.
When did I say that Palin was an amazing person?
Actually, Gore lost. He took eight years of peace and prosperity (well, it seemed like it at the time — now we know better) under a popular president and lost in a squeaker to a political nobody and the Dark Lord of the Sith.
Oh, do we really have to go into how the Supreme Court handed it to Bush on a silver platter yet again?
Had he not been an abysmal candidate, he wouldn’t have been in that situation in the first place.
(well, it seemed like it at the time — now we know better)
wait wait wait…when did Billy boy go a war-mongering? i know he went whore mongering alot, but i dont think thats as bad as war mongering
Yeah, except he should’ve won. And before you think I really like Al Gore or anything, I voted for Bush in 2000.
As Bitter’s chef pointed out below, the counts came back in the end. Bush won.
Yeah, he won that stupid ass electoral vote, I suppose. Gore won the popular vote, which tells me that there’s a flaw in the system.
Because the results didn’t come out how you wanted it, it’s flawed? (or want now)
I already said I voted for Bush in 2000. Back then the results DID come out the way I wanted. Only after dealing with him as president for a while did I realize what a mistake that was. The electoral college is old and outdated. It also makes votes a total joke. If I were a Democrat living in say, AL or MS, I wouldn’t even bother to vote for president. And if I were a Republican living in CA or NY, I likely wouldn’t bother either. For a long time now, such votes haven’t counted in presidential elections. At the very least, the electoral votes shouldn’t be all or nothing.
You ever study the reason why we have the electoral college?
Oh, it’s been a while, but yes, I did a paper in college about it. I don’t remember all the details, but frankly, I wasn’t convinced. I still think it’s old and outdated, and that’s even knowing that my guy won this time.
Well Radno, mob rule isn’t the answer. There’s a reason we aren’t a democracy, but rather a democratic republic.
Flor-ee-duh’s court did it, the Supremes punted to them with time still on the clock.
News flash, by the way, those right-wingers at the NYTimes and Co. did count the ballots and Gore still lost every way possible.
Which is sad, considering he won the popular vote. Perhaps I just still feel regret for the stupidest presidential vote I’ve made, and wonder how different the last administration would have been had it been in different hands.
Maybe Gore could have lied and fear mongered Osama and like into giving up?
Better to do it to Osama than to us.
I hope you don’t think Osama would have fell for it.
Sorry to differ with you, but it could have been done a lot worse than Bush. Bin Laden didn’t find a way to nuke America. Not that I think Bush was great, but the best Al could have done would have been to have a AGW conference in Afghanistan and the snow that always seems to follow him freeze OBL to death.
And again I’m wondering why I’m bothering to discuss this with you.
Because you seem to want to convince others that Al Gore is honest. And there is no factual evidence to support that.
In all the matters that count, yes, Palin is a “miserable failure”.
*how is VP of the US being a miserable failure?*
Well, let’s see, Slick got his own personal cigar box and all Al got was Tipper. Yep, major FAIL.
Wow, if being VPOTUS is a major fail to you, then I wonder what an epic win would be.
Having a book ghosted and going on the lecture tour?
She stopped in Springfield, MO and (just like everywhere else she’s gone) people lined up for hours (maybe even camped out, can’t remember for sure) just for a glimpse and possibly a book signed. Dude, I’ve quit my job before. I don’t see anyone lined up to get my autograph.
Were you the governor of MO?
Nope. Not really the point. The point is, why are people falling in love with someone who quit an important job? What she did was pathetic.
And you know what? If the governor of MO quit on us, I’d certainly hope we’d run him out of the state with torches and pitchforks and pray his career was finished instead of becoming more rich and famous with insane followers who think that was a great idea.
You mean like the insane followers who are making Al wealthier by the day?
She quit because of the BS of the election. Strategic retreat. Even Patton knew when to retreat.
That said, I don’t like the woman, and I’ve said so many times on here.
Pfft. I’d hardly call what she’s doing now a retreat. And what she did sucked. She failed the Alaskan people by quitting. Period.
Or she stopped a lot of legal costs the Alaskan people would have to incur because of the liberal witch hunt.
Yeah. I’m sure that’s why she did it. Just looking out for the Alaskan people against those nasty, horrible liberals.
You don’t like the woman, but you certainly seem hellbent on defending her tonight. Ivan’s not on, so I guess I’m the only one to pick a fight with, huh? Well, it was fun at first, but I’m getting annoyed and tired, so I’m giving up before I actually get angry.
Telling the truth is defending her? Not really. And no, it’s not the only reason, but it was an answer to what you said about the Alaskan people.
Geez. Don’t you know that the dinosaurs died in the great flood because they were too big to fit on the ark? That was, like, centuries before JC.
how silly of me, i should of just swallowed that salty load with blind faith
No, no. Salty water is bad for trolls. Didn’t they let trolls on the ark?
Well, you’re at least tacitly admitting that AGW is akin to faith. That’s a start…
Nope. Can’t speak for BT, but I’m making fun of you all.
“You all”, huh? That’s an awfully off-handed, imprecise generalization for a supposed “math geek”…
It’s simply the plural of you for anyone who has lived in Texas or the South. I would think the nesting would make it obvious which ‘yous’ I meant.
Hayseed or not, you’re still incorrectly generalizing.
Never said I was a hayseed; just answering your question. I wasn’t ‘generalizing’ about anything. I was making fun. Get over yourself.
Hey, don’t get mad at me: it’s your self-image, after all.
You never actually do read anything anyone posts nor actually respond to what anyone actually says, do you? You’re the one making the generalization, BTW. (I.e. that all people who’ve ever lived in Texas or the South are hayseeds.)
Oh, sorry — since I’m not in lockstep agreement with your self-serving interpretation, I *must* not be reading closely. How silly of me.
I have little interest in playing your childish games.
Here’s just there to watch Gore’s epic battle with Manbearpig.
now is the 50% bear of Manbearpig, a polar bear? or is that 25% polar and 25% grizzly?
50% bear, 50% man 50% pig. Can’t you do math?
of course I did the math but what percentages of the 50% bear makes up that bear? is it 50% grizzly and 50% polar? or maybe 25% black bear, 25% polar and 50% grizzly?
Oh, well that’s obvious. 7% Grizzly, 48% Brown, 23% Panda, 3 1/3% Polar, 62% Sun, and 4.813245436794523% Koala.
Twice now someone has decided to take a shot at Al Gore in a LOL that has nothing to do with Al Gore. Are the righties butthurt today for some reason?
I just counted four even less related shots at Sarah Palin — does that mean the lefties are twice as butthurt?
well no, see you righty’s have your heads shoved so far up that insane womans unwashed @ss, then look down to gore with a mocking laugh.
I’ll take that as a yes…
of course you will, because taking time to look at things and learning about them is a waste of time.
It is? Oh, shoot. *puts down her textbook* Guess I’ll go watch TV. Mythbusters is on.
mythbusters teachs science! you cant watch that, the only thing you need to know is ” cause god said so” and ” only if it makes you money”
I love the Mythbuster, however, their science has been wrong more than once. That’s why they have to revisit a lot of myths.
They are popular because they blow things up. Add in some humor, and a few attractive women……..
They have gotten better about that over the years, they do tend to be more rigorous now, but you are right, the explosions are the primary draw… Still fun though.
Yeah, I occasionally laugh when people tell me certain things were disproved on mythbuster. I admit they do debunk alot of myths and they’re great fun to watch, but they don’t get things right all of the time. JAC, you’ve left out something important on the list of reasons to watch: Awesome facial hair.
You mean awesome burned facial hair!
The original John 3:16 actually says “For God so loved the greenback that he gave money to the world, so that whoever pulleth themselves up by thine sandals shall have everlasting wealth.” It’s true.
I misread greenback as greenbeard. *blames GB for all the worlds financial problems*
I could say the same to you. Instead of looking into whether Gore’s an alarmist and how much of AGW, if any, is incorrect or in need of further research, you’re getting your bitters in a twist and ranting about blind faith and kicking babies.
you dont think i have? honestly i dont think its nearly as bad as he says it is. i just get sick of the fact that when ever he opens his mouth “you people” throw your arms in the air and start crying hoax like the freaks who think the moon landing was faked.
When you say “you people”, you mean those of us who expects the scientists Gore cites to actually behave like scientists, right? To freely share their data and methodologies and findings, and to put the truth before political activism?
Yeah, we suck.
to put the truth before political activism …hehe..HA HA…from you…AHHH HA HA HA HA HA HA HA-snort- HA HA hehehehehhehehehe.OOhhhh gods thats rich…HAHAHAHHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHHA
*hands bitter troll a diazepam*
Don’t overwhelm yourself, dear.
-hugs up charro tight- bitter troll has had a very very very bad few days. very very stressed and upset. life has decided to kick bittre troll in the nuts a few times
Bitter troll needs to come to the cave with the rest of us who are tired and need rest and all cuddle up together with some hot chocolate.
I have cookies, still…. *offers BT cookies* And there’s always the WIPP (for ‘disposal,’ you know).
Well, I suppose this as good a time as any…
*goes and rummages through the hold*
*comes back with a keg of whiskey and a keg of rum*
Anyone got mix?
I have egg nog. Do Canadians put rum in their egg nog?
*Raises Eyebrow*
Yes, but we call hard eggnog Moosemilk
Hmmm. *files away for future use*
But seriously, I would think you all would be the ones making moonshine. The alcohol prices in Victoria were really high!
Never heard of Newfie screech have you…
No, but I’m guessing that’s what you call moonshine. I’ve only been in BC.
Moonshine is closer to a Whiskey, Screech is closer to a Rum, but the principle is the same. Home made and can be used to degrease engines and remove paint.
Hey GB, I’ll have some of that rum for a proper rum and coke *Fills a glass with rum, shows it a picture of a can of coke and drinks*
*cracks the whiskey*
I see you know how to drink.
*grabs a mug dips it and quaffs it*
Let’s see. One mention of Palin was by a rightie, so that hardly counts against us. Two mentions of her was bitter troll in response to froo calling Joe Biden a miserable failure, so I call that a draw. The only really out of place comment (not that I disagree with it) was from Rattus, and I think that was also in response to that discussion between froo & BT.
I don’t give a monkeys about Al Gore’s political past. He just comes across as a bit of a devious tw@t. Having said which, the fact that he was a politician and is now seen as a spokesman for environmentalism gives an extra edge to the hating because it implies that having given up on his search for power through politics he’s now trying to gain power by other means. Which implies that if there were another more likely bandwagon he’d jump on that instead.
The fact that he’s a politician and the fact that his own company stands to make a few bob out of climate change leads me to the cynical view.
Okay, I can see how a politician spearheading something might taint that subject’s reputation, much in the way that Jimmy Carter’s involvement in Habitat For Humanity has completely ruined that organization and clearly corrupted it. I mean, when was the last time HFH did anything good? Obviously the involvement of a politician destroyed their credibility forever. /extreme sarcasm
The difference? Carter was sincere and honest about building houses. He also practices what he preaches.
Okay, fine. Maybe Al Gore is hypocritical. I don’t know that much about it. But if what he says & does brings positive changes for the environment, then I can let a little bit slide. If the positive he does outweighs the negative that he causes, then I say he’s okay.
But there is NO positive in Al Gore. Lies, lies, and more lies.
No positive in Al Gore, huh? Well, this conversation isn’t going anywhere then. Forget it.
It wont go anywhere if you think he did do something positive. He’s lied through his teeth. And treated people like we were too stupid to see the lies.
You really think the ice caps melt from the middle out? Or how about those polar bears? dying in one part of the world, yes. Thriving on the other. Natural cycle.
But Santa was busy…
That bear looks like The Stig to me.
He’s testing to see how well that chair will lap the test track.
“Some say he actually CAUSES global warming, some say he’s had surprise buttsecks with Al Gore, all I know is, he’s called THE STIG”
Hmmm- this LOL was made by Rose Adams- possibly an EWAdams sock ?
His sock is funnier than he is. bwhahahahahahaha.
Just thought I’d step in and say — I’m not a sock for EWAdams. I don’t actually know who EWAdams is. I usually read this site just for the pictures; kind of like a Playboy.
And thank you for the kind words, ay dios mio.
Congrats on making the front page then. Glad to know you’re not EWAdams’ sock. He is evil… boring, preachy evil.
Damn, forgot to change my name. I’m not a drunken pirate today. Today I’m… a tree. Yeah, that sounds good.
Thanks, Mina!
And I think we all secretly wish we were drunken pirates a little. I know I do.
My sister’s boyfriend told me last night that I should go work the Pirates thing at Disney. He said it’s the perfect career for me: I get to wear a corset, smoke, drink, and swear. I think I scared him when I pulled out my laptop and started looking online for where I could apply!
Hell, I’m a dude and I wish I could do all that stuff at work. Including the corset.
Frankie!? Is that you? Bitch, get back to work!
You are my new best friend! Let’s go play dress up at my friend’s costume shoppe. I know where she keeps the key to the liquor cabinet!
Deal! I’m free tomorrow.
It’ll have to be after work for me tomorrow. Stupid corporate job…
*rolleyes* Yay corporations!
They’re evil and annoying, but they pay the bills… most of the time. I have no desire to go back to fast food or retail. (I’m not good with the public…)
My lord people. What happened here?!? Wow, I thought both sides saved this grade-a butthurt for election nights.
Blind faith in Gore = blind faith in anything
Questioning Gore =/= killing children to make money (I don’t know what that was about)
Pretending that we should keep polluting = stupid
There that covered stupidity on both sides right?
Ah, a voice of reason… refreshing
*watches as the two mobs of pitchforks vs. torches all simultaneously turn towards ADM and shout in perfect unison “He has rationality and reasoning! Kill him! Kill him!*
It’s Phelim McAleer, one of the co-creators of the film “Not Evil, Just Wrong.”
http://www.noteviljustwrong.com/
{http://www.dailyexpress.co.uk/posts/view/146138}
For a view outside the US.
Mmm, haven’t read me some Daily Express in a while! Fnu stuff!
This picture comes from the COP15 climate conferense in Copenhagen.
It turned out that the furcon was tommorow…
Maybe you arctic-ing someone off?